|
Actually, I have read Asimov's Foundation trilogy and I recommend you read his essay, "The Name of our Field" (think that's the title, it's been years since I read it, though I believe it was eventually published in his last book, Gold). In it, he talks about the difference between what the popular media calls science fiction and what science fiction means to those who essentially wrote the textbook examples of good science fiction consider it. Science fiction need not concern itself with ray-guns and spaceships, even if that's what people think of when they hear the term.
There's plenty of debate over what constitutes science fiction (heh, looking over these forums there's even debate over far easier to define terms like "free", but that's a matter for a different discussion), but that doesn't really concern itself with the original question. If we can go back through the scribblings a bit, we'll see that Kavir said that science fiction MUDs are associated with ranged weapons. But science fiction need not have ranged weapons. Again, I put it to you that a good science fiction MUD (or a poor one for that matter) does not have to have ranged weapons. If that's what prevents people from building one or playing one, it's their own narrow view of what science fiction is that is the problem.
Besides, most fantasy that I've ever seen featured bows and arrows. Hasn't stopped hundreds of fantasy MUDs from being created or thousands of people from playing them.
Take care,
Jason
|